54 7 Q. (By Mr. Levin) I've got some 8 questions, Mr. Ramsey, that deal with fiber 9 evidence, and this is probably going to be10 questions that your lawyer is going to advise11 you not to answer, but I would like to pose12 them to you.13 MR. WOOD: Is this what we14 discussed yesterday with Patsy?15 MR. LEVIN: Different fibers16 associated directly with -- 17 MR. WOOD: I think the position18 is, to save some time, if you want to19 question Mr. Ramsey about test results, that20 it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to21 see the result ourselves before we answer22 questions so that we are not dealing with23 speculation and hypotheticals that are not24 supported by the facts as you might represent25 them.

55 1 We couldn't get yesterday what I 2 discerned to be a consistent response from 3 any of you all about the test results that 4 you discussed on the red fiber. That just 5 tells me that, to try to go into this area 6 without being privy to the actual result, is 7 not something I am comfortable with in terms 8 of fundamental fairness. If you are willing 9 to disclose to us what you claim the result10 to be, it makes absolutely no sense to me11 that you would not share the actual result12 with us. I do not see how that can in any13 justified way impede your investigation or14 prevent you from going forward with your15 investigation.16 So we are not comfortable with17 your characterization of any test results18 forensically. We will reconsider at the19 appropriate time if we get there whether we20 will answer those questions if you will21 provide us with the actual result itself. 22 So that's our position yesterday. That's our23 position today. That will be our position24 tomorrow.25 But if you will give us the

56 1 results, we will look at them and we will 2 consider whether or not we can answer 3 questions based on those results. 4 Fair enough? 5 MR. LEVIN: I understand. And, 6 of course, and I believe you feel I am 7 entitled to at least pose the questions, 8 understanding your position, so they are part 9 of the record so this is an accurate --10 MR. WOOD: Well, you can pose11 them if you want to make a record, and I12 think I understand pretty clearly why you13 want to make that record based on what you14 said yesterday.15 I said yesterday I thought it was16 an injustice for you to make those kinds of17 representations through your questions or18 statements.19 If you are going to make20 statements that contain some form of innuendo21 that an article of clothing might possibly be22 connected to some portion of the crime scene23 or this man's daughter's body, I think you24 have an obligation, not only to him but to25 whoever reads that report and this

57 1 transcript, to be candid and give full 2 disclosure, show the people what the results 3 are, show the people what you also had in 4 terms of fiber evidence. 5 We are told there are hundreds of 6 fibers, for example, on the duct tape. And 7 I think you have a fundamental right, 8 fundamental fairness requires that you 9 disclose that information and not single out10 some hypothetical innuendo that unfairly casts11 perhaps in someone's mind that reads this12 some finger of blame at John or Patsy13 Ramsey. I think it is totally inappropriate14 for you to do so, but if you want to go15 ahead and make a record for whatever reason,16 I certainly am not here to stop you. You17 have the right.18 MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Wood. 19 I appreciate the opportunity.20 MR. WOOD: Thank you.

GO LIN!!!

"...it is absolutely fair that we be allowed to see the result ourselves before we answer questions so that we are not dealing with speculation and hypotheticals that are not supported by the facts as you might represent them."

5721 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is22 our belief based on forensic evidence that23 there are hairs that are associated, that the24 source is the collared black shirt that you25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

58 1 underpants, and I wondered if you -- 2 A. Bullshit. I don't believe that. 3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to 4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter -- 5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to 6 disgrace -- 7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I 8 think you are. That's disgusting. 9 MR. WOOD: I think you --10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are. 12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up13 question would be --14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in15 light of what I said to you yesterday is16 nothing more than an attempt to make a17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a18 disgusting fashion points what you might19 consider to be some finger of blame at this20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce. 22 You knew we weren't going to23 answer the question. Why don't you just24 give us the report, and we'll put it out25 there for someone to look at and tell us

59 1 what it says and see how fair and accurate 2 you have been. 3 I know why you said what you said 4 yesterday about Patsy and the fibers and John 5 and the fibers. And you know why you did 6 it, Bruce. Because you want this somehow to 7 get out and then people will read that and 8 be prejudiced even further against this 9 family.10 I just don't know why you want to11 do it, but I can't stop you.12 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, if you13 would like to, I would challenge you to find14 any article anywhere that I have been quoted15 as giving an opinion or any statement to the16 press concerning this case.17 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be18 quoted. You don't have to be quoted.19 MR. LEVIN: Or any piece of20 evidence that I have released.21 MR. WOOD: You don't have to be22 quoted. You do not have to be quoted.23 MR. LEVIN: This is a murder24 investigation, and I am trying to get an25 explanation, which can be an innocent

60 1 explanation. 2 MR. WOOD: It could be, but you 3 pose your question as if it's not not. 4 That's what's unfair. Why don't you let us 5 see the report so we can know exactly what's 6 going on, exactly what other fibers were 7 found in that area so that you don't 8 unfairly cast an aspersion through innuendo 9 or suggestion toward this man and his10 daughter. 11 It seems to me that you should12 look over and go look, Mr. Wood, we want13 your client's help, we will give you the14 test results if it will help get this15 answered, if it is so important, we'll tell16 you whether there was another fiber or fibers17 found that we doen't know where they came18 from and maybe he can help you with that19 information, but that is not what you are20 doing. You are focusing on what you believe21 is one specific area. And you are doing it22 in a way that I think is just unfair.23 Let me just answer your question24 about you being quoted. Look, John and25 Patsy Ramsey sat around for three years and

61 1 did not go public with this case, even 2 though your people were talking to tabloids 3 and writing books and appearing on 4 television. Linda Arndt, Steve Thomas, Alex 5 Hunter. 6 You want to go through the litany 7 of how your people have publicly prosecuted 8 and persecuted this family, and now they 9 decided enough is enough and they tried to10 go out with me, yes, sir, and them and try11 to refute some of the absolute lies that12 have been told about them. Do you have a13 problem with that?14 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood.15 MR. WOOD: Because your people16 have been saying it. I am not calling your 17 name. I don't know who it is linked to. 18 I don't know who gave the ransom note to19 Vanity Fair. I'm not suggesting it is you. 20 But don't sit here and tell me that because21 Bruce Levin hasn't been quoted that this22 investigation from the Boulder Police23 Department and the district attorney's office24 is a lily white when it comes to talking25 about this case in the media because that is

62 1 false, and you know it. 2 MR. LEVIN: Now, Mr. Wood, if I 3 can just respond very briefly, and I want 4 Mr. Ramsey to listen to this because it's 5 important, the suggestion is that I am 6 suggesting that the only explanation for that 7 question is sinister. I am a part of a 8 team conducting an investigation into your 9 daughter's death, and an innocent explanation10 that would help us further that investigation11 is very welcome. I am not looking for a12 sinister answer or innocent answer.13 MR. WOOD: If you are looking for14 that, then give us the test result and let15 us know what it says.16 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Wood, the fact 17 of --18 MR. WOOD: No, Bruce. If you19 wanted the answer so badly, you would give20 us the test result instead of representing21 what the test result is. I, for the life22 of me, do not understand the logic.23 You say we can tell you what the24 test result is, but we can't show you the25 test result. So trust us, Mr. Ramsey, and

63 1 answer this hypothetical question. 2 If that information means that 3 much to this investigation, Bruce, you would 4 not hesitate to give us that report, period. 5 So let's move to something else. 6 MR. LEVIN: Let's move on to 7 another topic. 8 THE WITNESS: If the question is 9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not11 possible. I don't believe it. That is12 ridiculous.13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I need to14 change the audio cassette. It will take15 just one moment.

LE doesn't have to be honest when questioning a witness. From all I have learned, I feel comfortable stating that the fiber evidence was misrepresented by LE here - - they didn't share a report on the fibers because they didn't have a report that said what they claimed.

Lin had their number - they were orchestrating the interviews so they could put out certain statements detrimentaltot he Ramseys. I don't see Kane and Company being honest and looking only to solve this. This was not sharing information - it was trickery with a cause. Grrrr

6417 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, when18 you came home on the 25th, do you recall if19 you threw your clothes down the chute to the20 second floor where someone who might have21 been in the house would have access to them? 22 Can you tell us who might have done that?23 A. Who knows. I don't know.24 Q. I understand it is tough.25 A. I really don't. Yeah, I don't

65 1 know. 2 MR. WOOD: I mean, you asked for 3 his clothes in December of '97, you got them 4 in January of '98. Why, for the love of 5 common sense and logic, wouldn't you have 6 asked him about that in June of 1998 when 7 his memory was a lot more fresh, at least 8 fresher than it is now two plus years later? 9 But, you know, that's just a part of the10 ongoing mystery of some of the aspects of11 the case, I guess, in terms of the12 investigation.13 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Wool shirts, would14 those normally go out to the cleaners or15 would it depend? Even now, what is your16 family practice?17 A. Well, if it is a dry-cleaning18 item, we'd normally send it directly to the19 dry cleaners. Once in a while they get20 thrown in by mistake, but particularly if it21 is a shirt.22 Q. Your dry-cleaning items, would you23 just throw them down the chute and let Linda24 sort them out, this is dry-cleaning, this25 gets washed or would you separate them up

66 1 front and keep them in a separate place, if 2 you recall? 3 A. I don't -- I am trying to 4 remember where the laundry chute went to. I 5 mean, it probably -- I wasn't that organized 6 to separate things out like that as a normal 7 course of business. 8 MR. BECKNER: Did you ask what he 9 did on that particular night with the shirt? 10 I missed that.11 THE WITNESS: Frankly, I don't12 remember.13 MR. LEVIN: I thought I had asked14 you. I wasn't sure if that was clear.15 THE WITNESS: I mean, typically16 if it is a wool shirt, something that does17 require dry-cleaning, I try to get several18 cycles out of it, but I don't remember.19 MR. BECKNER: What was your20 normal routine?21 THE WITNESS: Well, normally, I22 would --23 MR. WOOD: About dry-cleaning?24 MR. BECKNER: No.25 THE WITNESS: -- I would hang

67 1 onto it. If it was something I wanted to 2 wear again, I'd hang it, I'd try to, I'd 3 usually hang it up. Sometimes I would put 4 it on a chair. But I wasn't religious about 5 that. I would normally try to hang it up. 6 Q. (By Chief Beckner) Let me be 7 more specific. Would you throw your clothes 8 on the floor typically in a pile? 9 A. Well, no, not, not if I was, if10 I was going to wear it again. If it was11 headed for the laundry, you know, it could12 end up on the floor before it ended up in13 the laundry chute, but if I intend to wear14 it again, if it was a suit or sweater, or15 something like that, I normally wouldn't16 throw it on the floor.17 MR. WOOD: Have we finished that18 area of questioning because it seemed like19 maybe it is a good time to take a short20 break.21 MR. LEVIN: I am finished with22 that area.23 MR. WOOD: Is that okay for24 everybody to take a short break?25 MR. LEVIN: That is good.

I still don't know what this is about - - were they trying to make John think fibers from his shirt were on the body and he needed to explain how an intruder could have gotten the fibers...??? if so,they didn't get anywhere as John just answered honestly - didn't jump for the opportunity to explain the theory the cops seemed to hold dear.

This discussion about the fibers reminds me of the 911 tape where they had Patsy in for questioning and told her "It's there" meaning that there was conversation on it after she had supposedly hung up. She asked them to play the tapes, but they didn't do it because they knew that she wouldn't hear any conversation. Lin did exactly the right thing here, and so did Patsy when she asked them to play the tape.

I believe that these are both cases of illegitimate and counterproductive interrogation technique, failed attempts to get the witness to say something ON RECORD, even if it's pure speculation based on misrepresentations of the known facts. The witness' speculations, if they are provided for the record, can be used later during cross-examination at trial in an attempt to discredit the witness. This isn't the best way, probably not even a good way, to get at the truth. This is setting people up for further "persecution," not an "investigation."

I still don't know what this is about - - were they trying to make John think fibers from his shirt were on the body and he needed to explain how an intruder could have gotten the fibers...??? if so,they didn't get anywhere as John just answered honestly - didn't jump for the opportunity to explain the theory the cops seemed to hold dear.

I think they were trying to see if John would try to "explain" the fibers as some sort of transfer from his shirt to JonBenét's underwear via mingling in the common laundry (via the chute).

I think it is pretty obvious that there were dark fibers in JonBenét's genital area (in her underpants), but I believe they tried to pin them on Patsy's housecoat (dark blue) - as per, I believe, the NE questioning of '97 or '98 - and now on John's black shirt. I don't believe they have a report bearing out a CONSISTENT WITH (and it goes without saying they do not have a match, because there would be no such thing as a fiber match).

It does not make ANY SENSE AT ALL to assume Levin was trying to PROTECT investigation information on this issue (keep it from the Ramseys and their attorneys). After all, the insinuations from the line of questioning were a big enough TIP OFF to what they were saying (pretending) they had.

What is most significant is that - NEVER - has John even tried to imply any innocent explanation of fiber transfer. These guys are barking up the wrong tree. John's reaction is an honest one ... pure OUTRAGE at the suggestion that he had a sordid relationship with JonBenét. These guys make me sick!

If the dark/black/blue fibers were from John's Israeli wool shirt, there would be no doubt what those fibers were because wool is a natural protein fiber, easily differentiated from man-made fibers through microscopic examination and chemical analysis. The inner structure of wool fibers contain a core running the length of the round fiber and the outer layer is 'scaled.' Silk, on the other hand, is smooth and the fiber itself is triangular in shape with a solid core and the inner structure resembles a glass rod. Cotton fibers would have a rougher, hairier look than either of the other two fibers and man-made fibers are typically quite smooth. The proteins in wool contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur that are combined into 19 amino acids linked together in ladder-like polypeptide chains.

In a court of law, the cops would never be able to say they had a lab report that didn't exist - it would be perjury. But in an interrogation or interview - it is legal.

Lin was right to ask to see the reports - - it clearly would not be unreasonable - - if they could state the findings, why could they not showthe report? My educated guess is because they were telling boldfaced lies.

Long ago, I think most of uswould have read these transcripts and thought the cops actually HAD those reports - - but now we read with more caution and a greater understanding of the situation.

If the cops had those reports, I believe they would have shared them. I don't know of one place where anyone was willing to go on the record and say they saw them - - not one quote. That tells me a lot.

"Long ago, I think most of us would have read these transcripts and thought the cops actually HAD those reports - - but now we read with more caution and a greater understanding of the situation."

It seems Lin was pretty fed up with this tactic, and he wasn't about to let it continue. Kane wasn't too happy that Lin was there making sure the questioners didn't misrepresent anything. I wonder if Kane ever did really understand why that was necessary or does he think to this day that the whole point was stalling?

Fact is, Doc, any fibers they may have found on JonBenet that could be sourced to the parents' clothing would not be proof of guilt. If it were, the DA's office would have filed an indictment.

What you are missing in this is the fact that first they tried to nail Patsy with the red fibers, and in this 'interview,' Kane attempted to nail John. Both attempts failed because the parents know they did not kill their daughter.

This is an interrogation technique. Lead the suspect to believe you have the 'goods' on them (sweat 'em), and they'll confess. Patsy told them they were wrong, John told them 'bullshit.'

Those are the reactions and verbal responses of innocent people, not murderers. When confronted with a hint of scientific evidence, unless a killer is a psychopath, the majority confess, and we're talking about people who have made a life of crime (not necessarily serial killers, per se), not two respectable adults who have never been known to take part in criminal activities.

>Suppose they DID find fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's >underpants. What then? How would you feel then, folks?

If they did match..... I would be concerned - - that's an honest answer. But I believe the fibers they found in the underwear were not a match. If they really were, K&C would have shared the lab report in Atlanta. As it is, my information is that those fibers are still of interest - if someone believes they have the shirt or sweater that left the fibers, they need to put the sweater in a brown paper bag and send it to the authrities. Could be very helpful.

I would, probably like Rainsong, much more worried about a lack of fibers from either Patsy or John being found anywhere on JonBenét's body, her clothing, her hair, etc. If there were no such fibers, it would lend a lot of credence to the theory that JonBenét was abducted by aliens and replaced with a sterile replicate.

This round of questioning is extremely important IMO because it establishes clearly for the first time that the dark fibers found in JonBenet's panties are believed by the BPD to have come from John's shirt. I don't think there's any getting around that. And if you have any doubts as to the importance of this evidence, check out Lin Wood's reaction -- the guy literally goes ballistic at the mere mention of these fibers.

Before trying to draw any conclusions, however, cooler heads would want to ask some questions. Such as:

Has it been established that the panties JonBenet was wearing when found were new, right out of the plastic container? Or not? Had they ever been laundered?

Do we know if there were any signs of these dark fibers, allegedly from John's shirt, on JBR's hands?

Were the fibers in question found anywhere else of importance, e.g., on her other clothing, elsewhere on her body, etc.?

John claims he carried her to bed that night. If he was wearing a shirt that shed fibers, one would assume that those fibers would be all over the outside of whatever she was wearing. Were they?

It's been suggested JonBenet's genitals had been wiped down. This conclusion was drawn, as I recall, because of the pattern of these same dark fibers on her body. If the fibers are from John's shirt, can we conclude he wiped her with his own shirt? That seems unlkely to me, I must confess. On the other hand, an intruder wanting to plant incriminating evidence might do just that, no?

At this point I am very intrigued but also confused. It would be really helpful to see the full report.

If the fibers were on anything the killer wore - - no matter who the killer was - that would explain matching fibers on her bedding, on her clothes... after all, he carried her to the basement, touched her and her clothes. But if they were on a shirt and he had a jacket over it, that might explain an absence of fibers there...

I think he did not pull down her longjohns, that he slipped his hand down them and the wrist band of the dark article of clothing came in contact with the wet genitals and so the fibers were left there and no where else.

Now I do know that the Ramseys belongings were searched looking for something that might leave those fibers - - the floors of the closets were gone over with tape to pick up fibers, for example - - and no match was found.

I don't believe the shirt fibers match - - and I think the questions about dry-cleaning were put in there to suggest that might have altered the fibers enough...

See - I think they did not have a match and this was a bluff. I think they lost.

I find this new fiber information extremely interesting and important but also very very puzzling. Oddly, it makes me both more suspicious of John AND at the same time more open to the possibility of SOME sort of intruder theory. What a strange feeling, I must say.

ON THE ONE HAND:For a long time now I've been hearing that "there's not a single piece of evidence linking John Ramsey to this crime -- none!" Now, suddenly, we learn that there IS indeed evidence which not only links him to the crime but which is potentially devastating: fibers from his shirt were found in JonBenet's underpants (and I'd assume this accounts for the dark fibers found in the vaginal area as well). And not from just any shirt, but the shirt he was wearing the previous night. And I don't think the police are bluffing, by the way. By the year 2000 the time for bluffing had long passed. It seems clear there has to be SOME sort of match, something the BPD had been keeping very close to their vest. So we now do have an evidentiary link between John and the attack on JonBenet. Enough, I'd say, to indict, under most circumstances.

But the circumstances in this case are very special. The most likely suspect, based on possible motive (incest?) and evidence (those shirt fibers), has been "ruled out" as writer of the note. His wife has not been ruled out, but it has been deemed unlikely that she could have written it. With no idea who could have written the note, and with the assurance from (infallible????) "experts" that the most likely suspect (John) could NOT have written it, there is really no coherent case that could be made. Again, as I argued earlier, if John had been the only one in the house that night, I think he'd have been indicted for sure. And, as you already know, I am NOT willing to accept the verdict that he must be "ruled out" as writer of the note. I think he COULD have written it.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

The very evidence that links him to the crime also in some sense MIGHT tend to exonerate him. At least in my (admittedly overactive and overheated) mind.

I've always rejected the notion that the crime could have been committed by someone "out to get" John, on the basis of the "fact" that there's no evidence any intruder made any effort to set him up. Anyone trying to frame John would have been sure to place fibers from his clothing on the victim -- and as far as any of us knew, this was not the case. NOW, however, we learn that, apparently, JonBenet could have been wiped down by someone using John's shirt! And I can't for the life of me understand why John himself would have wanted to do that. But I CAN understand why someone wanting to frame John would have done exactly that.

SO, the strongest piece of evidence against John could turn out, as far as I am concerned, to ALSO be the strongest piece of evidence that some person out to get revenge on John could have done it. No question, we HAVE to see the full report, I'm with Lin and Jameson on that point. And I too see no reason at this late date to withhold it.

I must say that this is the first development in the case that's caused me to seriously reconsider my "John-did-it" theory. Very very strangly, this new evidence which seems to point very strongly to John ALSO suggests that someone could have been trying to set him up, a theory I'd always rejected.

From what we know at this time, this fiber evidence could point in either direction. LET'S SEE THE FULL REPORT!

"John claims he carried her to bed that night. If he was wearing a shirt that shed fibers, one would assume that those fibers would be all over the outside of whatever she was wearing. Were they?

It's been suggested JonBenet's genitals had been wiped down. This conclusion was drawn, as I recall, because of the pattern of these same dark fibers on her body. If the fibers are from John's shirt, can we conclude he wiped her with his own shirt? That seems unlkely to me, I must confess. On the other hand, an intruder wanting to plant incriminating evidence might do just that, no?"

I agree with you DocG.

If the fibers are from his shirt they could have been all over JB and she could have transfered a few herself to her underwear.

The newspaper article with John's picture circled, or whatever, the one remeniesent of "Ricochet" (the revenge movie where the good guy was set up as a procurer of prostitutes and his best friend framed as a pedophile in order to ruin him),...WAS FOUND ON THE THIRD FLOOR NEAR JOHN'S DESK. I don't think John remember's what he did with his shirt, that's apparent with the answers he did give. HOW DO WE KNOW the shirt was still on the third floor afterwards?

Do I think there is a fiber match? NO. Do I think Lin was exercising good judgement in resisting this line of questioning? Yes. Do I think the cops were trying to set John up? Maybe, maybe not. I think he should have tried to answer the questions.

If he knew where he left the shirt and LE knew where it wound up that might be significant, not necessarily incriminating.

I believe that the statement that DocG repeatedly quotes without reference is actually a misquote of: "The strongest evidence against the Ramseys is nothing that directly implicates them." (V. Bugliosi as quoted in PMPT, hardcover, page 568). This is still a true statement. The fact that it's still true after millions of dollars worth of attempts to invalidate it strongly suggests that they are indeed innocent.

-------------------------

We are very, very unlikely to see the full report for reasons I'll mention later in this post. The full report probably lists dozens if not hundreds of fibers. The vast majority of those fibers should be expected to be sourced to something in the house. Therefore, finding a fiber on JonBenét, on her clothing, in her hair, etc. is representative. Leaving the burglar alarm off is representative of the Ramsey home at night; they didn't often turn it on. No footprints in the snow is representative of all photos that we've seen; clear pathways are representative of the house that morning. Finding any type of fiber from either John or Patsy tells us nothing --- nothing at all. It's completely meaningless, just like no footprints in the snow and the burglar alarm being off. Some people, especially the ones we fondly refer to as "BORG," are making this same mistake regarding what is representative and what is not over and over and over again.

What these inquisitors were hoping for, and I think that this should be rather obvious from the transcript, is that John would say something like, "Uh --- well --- uh, she had to go to the bathroom and --- uh --- she was too tired to wipe herself off --- so --- uh --- I think I might have done that. Uh --- maybe that's --- DUH --- how it got there. Yeah, that's it." Then they would show this at trial to discredit him. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: How many of you think it's appropriate for a father of a ...?" The type of technique that was used here is known to result in high rates of false confessions. Many people feel compelled to try and explain things, even to the point of making things up even when they're completely innocent. This interrogation is nothing short of pathetic.

The unidentified or unsourced fibers MAY be clues about a possible intruder. The problem is that she had been out of the house very recently prior to her murder. The usefulness of unsourced fibers is that if they can be traced to someone who was supposedly never in the house, never near JonBenét, and so forth, it would be very incriminating. This is the only utility of the fiber evidence that is reliable. Anything else that is derived from the fiber evidence should be highly suspect.

We probably won't see the entire report because it probably has many unsourced fibers in it and it probably has dozens if not hundreds of fibers that are sourced to items in the house, including clothing of John and Patsy. Showing John and Lin the report would merely verify that finding a fiber from John or Patsy is common, expected, representative. That is, providing the full report would show that pointing out any single fiber is a misrepresentation of the totality of the evidence if the source of that single fiber is an item in the house.

Perhaps the situation could be summarized in saying that evidence needs to be evaluated in context, just like quoting someone. Showing someone a single fiber is like taking a single sentence out of a speech. It means something only under very particular circumstances. Lin is simply saying, "Show us the speech, and then perhaps John can comment on it."

It appears the Atlanta Group had no intention of looking into anything new or different from what they were looking at back in 1997, 1998, 1999, and the first 8 months of 2000. For anyone to deny this Group had a very specific agenda that did not include sharing or brainstorming "who" might have committed this crime means you should probably read the transcript again, IMO. Their purpose in having John and Patsy sit before them did not include an honest examination of leads and tips or picking the brains of the Ramseys to see if they could tie any of it together.

If they wanted one or both of the Ramseys to break down and confess, the "Fiber Report" (if it existed) or some (actual) incriminating evidence SHOULD have been presented as the Ace Of Trump and proof that they were justified in continuing to focus on one or both of them.

Let's look at this realistically. What do you think the report (if it existed) would have said? Does anyone seriously believe it would say the fibers from John's shirt were a MATCH? The best we can assume such a report would say is CONSISTENT WITH and even that could have been used as their trump card in pushing the meeting in the direction they dearly hoped it would go.

This transcript of the Atlanta Meeting looks to me like they arrived without doing their homework. It looks like they just pulled out old notes from old information and continued to re-work it. Reading between the lines, it does not look to me like they did much investigating between 1998 and 2000 and were very disinterested in what the Ramsey investigators were bringing to the table. No wonder Lin Wood pushed the envelope to have the case taken out of their hands and placed into the hands of a new team of investigators. As it was, the case was completely stalled and the brain pool was stuck in a rut.

By the sounds of the size of the documents Lin Wood speaks of (ie the Fleet White linguistic and/or handwriting analysis) and John Ramsey speaks of (the 50 page one he was trying to give them do discuss) just to name two, I can well imagine the new team in the DA's office has a tremendously enormous task before them sifting through it all and trying to tie things together.

I am glad the Ramseys are meeting with them (in 2003) and would hope THEIR sessions will be more productive than what we are reading here.

I don't know exactly what to think at the moment, though I must say it looks to me like wishful thinking to assume the police were simply making something up regarding the fiber match. This is one of the very few pieces of info we can actually source to the investigators themselves. It looks pretty solid. Doesn't come from a Tab, doesn't come from Charlie Brennan, doesn't come from un-named "sources," but from what looks very much like a bona fide transcript, presented by none other than Jameson herself. This is basically straight from the horse's mouth. Maybe the police were lying to John and Lin, but realistically why would they want to do that? Considering Lin's well known tendency to be agressive and sue at the drop of a hat, that would be like putting their heads into the Li(o)n's mouth. I really don't think they'd take such a risk, sounds to be the fiber match is for real.

My questions of the moment are:

How did the shirt in question get to be removed from the house? And why was that permitted? On the 26th, Patsy was wearing what she had on the night before. Did the police collect those garments for testing? Or did she leave still wearing them? John had apparently changed clothes and was not wearing what he'd worn the night before. Can we assume he was allowed to leave with what HE was wearing on the 26th? If so, and assuming he was no longer wearing the shirt in question, then why was he permitted to take that with him before could be tested? Were the Ramseys permitted to just pack up any old clothes they thought they might need?

How did the shirt in question get to be removed from the house? And why was that permitted? On the 26th, Patsy was wearing what she had on the night before. Did the police collect those garments for testing? Or did she leave still wearing them? John had apparently changed clothes and was not wearing what he'd worn the night before. Can we assume he was allowed to leave with what HE was wearing on the 26th? If so, and assuming he was no longer wearing the shirt in question, then why was he permitted to take that with him before could be tested? Were the Ramseys permitted to just pack up any old clothes they thought they might need?

Patsy left the house wearing the same clothes she wore to the Whites and the morning of the 26th. They traveled with her to the fernies and to Atlanta and a year later were given to police. The police showed no interest in the clothes for a year - - shouldn't have happened that way but it did.

John had changed his clothes - was not wearing on the 26th what he wore to the Whites. And he was allowed to leave with whatever he had on. He doesn't remember if the clothes he wore to the Whites were hung up or put on a chair - doesn't remember and why would he when the questions were asked years after the night. He never stated that the clothes were taken out by Pam - - it seems to me they were packed up and sent to Atlanta by the professional movers who did all of that.

Okay, I'll admit I'm very tired, but how did I miss that there was a fiber match to John's shirt? It is their "belief based on forensic evidence, the there are HAIRS (sic) that are associated, that the source is the collared black shirt that you sent us that are found in your daughter's underpants ...." I don't see any reference to a report. I don't see any reference to a MATCH (and I'll keep saying it until the cows come home: because there is no such thing). I don't even see a reference to CONSISTENT WITH. The most I can be sure of from this statement is that there were "hairs" they believe were sourced from John's shirt.

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is22 our belief based on forensic evidence that23 there are hairs that are associated, that the24 source is the collared black shirt that you25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

"John claims he carried her to bed that night. If he was wearing a shirt that shed fibers, one would assume that those fibers would be all over the outside of whatever she was wearing. Were they?"

Hmm, let's see.

John Ramsey lifted his sleeping child out of the car. One can assume that since the temperatures were rather low on the night of Dec. 25th, 1996, that he wore a coat--possibly buttoned/zipped. We know JonBenet was wearing a coat--possibly buttoned/zipped because John Ramsey stated he removed her coat and shoes once he had carried her up to bed.

Theoretically, some of the fibers from John Ramsey's shirt could have transferred to JonBenet's outer clothing at that time--except nowhere does John Ramsey state he set JonBenet down, took off his own coat, and then picked her up again to carry her to bed.

Given that Kane did not say the fibers found on JonBenet were "consistent" with John's Israeli wool shirt, but only intimated that they were 'associated with' same shirt, I'd say Kane was fishin' for an admission and got zilch.

The majority of the dark, unsourced fibers were found on JonBenet's genitals--leading Meyer to assume she had been wiped down. I believe some of those same dark fibers were also found on her outer clothing--but my memory plays me false too frequently to state that as fact. Had those fibers found on JonBenet's genitalia been 'consistent' with John Ramsey's Israeli wool shirt, John Ramsey would most likely be sitting in a jail cell.

The name of Kane's game was still--nail the parents for this crime because the FBI says it is most often the parents who kill their kids--except Dr. Keppel's (et. al.) research study does not bear out this 'fact,' nor are there any indications of prior abuse (sexual or physical), mental illness or other history which precedes murder by parent.

"Had those fibers found on JonBenet's genitalia been 'consistent' with John Ramsey's Israeli wool shirt, John Ramsey would most likely be sitting in a jail cell."

I would hope that this would not be true, but unfortunately it might have been the case. To the extent that it would be true, it indicates a lack of understanding of what fiber evidence can actually tell anyone.

"Had those fibers found on JonBenet's genitalia been 'consistent' with" a complete stranger who claims to never have been in the house or anywhere near JonBenet, this person "would most likely be sitting in a jail cell."

I would hope that this would be true; however the extent that this would be true does not necessarily indicate any better understanding of fiber evidence.

Yes dear, but you must remember, 'twas the BPD doing the investigatin'. If BPD had indeed 'matched' those fibers to John Ramsey, they would have pressured Alex Hunter into indicting him in a New York minute.

Then they probably would have dragged their feet for six years trying to make the evidence match their theory.

My understanding of the "wiping" is that it had more to do with the special light used during the autopsy that showed - what they first thought was - semen, but what later turned out to be a wiping or cleaning up of the (right???) thigh. I did not think it had to do with the fibers. Isn't that more of a result of an evolution of theory - tying together the suspicion of wiping (seen under the light) and the appearance of fibers in the underpants.

I think Maikai has hit on the more likely source of the black/dark fibers. JonBenét was wearing black velvet pants. I think the BPD knows it and that is why they will not show the "report". It probably identifies the fiber as "cotton or velvet", not wool. I really do believe they have been bluffing - mainly because they have NO REASON not to show John, Patsy, or Lin the "report". It is not like they are "protecting the case" since they have completely tipped their hand on that issue.

Does anyone else have information regarding the "wiping"? I seem to recall reading somewhere (recently) that there was evidence of a cleanser having been used (and I don't mean reading forum gossip. I recall reading this in one of the books or a transcript or something more 'official' than forum posts.)

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is22 our belief based on forensic evidence that23 there are hairs that are associated, that the24 source is the collared black shirt that you25 sent us that are found in your daughter's

581 underpants, and I wondered if you --

Well, Mr. Levin isn't exactly the most articulate investigator of all time. He mentions "hairs" when clearly he means "fibers," and his sentence isn't particularly grammatical . . . But the meaning seems clear enough. Fibers were found in the area in and around JonBenet's genitals that have been sourced to John Ramsey's "collared black shirt."

This is BLOCKBUSTER news, folks. You won't see it in the Tabs, because they've learned their lesson by now and are wisely steering clear of this case. But IMO this is could well be the most telling revelation we've had in all the years we've been puzzling over this case on the forums.

Team Ramsey can dismiss this as a bluff till the cows come home. But you should all be prepared to deal with the very real possibility that it is NOT a bluff. I for one see no reason for Levin to have bluffed on this or any other point at that late date. The investigation of the fiber evidence might have been flawed, the "match" they found could certainly be contested. But the fact that the police believe they've found such a match is VERY big news and potentially VERY damaging to John Ramsey. No wonder even the new DA has never agreed to let the Ramseys out from under that umbrella of suspicion.

Jameson et al.: I urge you to develop some sort of fallback position regarding these fibers in the very VERY likely event Levin was NOT bluffing. You may not be happy with MY take on this (which gives John the benefit of the doubt) but consider the alternative.

The purpose, Doc, is the same one I've repeatedly told you: To make John 'fess up. To lead the witness into believing you have the 'goods' on them. But it ONLY works for those who are guilty or are so stressed/befuddled/exhausted (Michael Crowe) from the lengthy interrogations, that they will confess to anything.

If you recall, the BPD attempted the same technique with Patsy Ramsey at the previous 'interviews.' Didn't work but Kane was game enough to try it 'one more time.'

I put no credence into anything Kane might say since he wasn't aware of the brown paper sack containing the rope found in the house. He evidently knew nothing about it and referred to the canvas bag found in the crawlspace on the Dan Abrams show.

Fibers were found in the area in and around JonBenet's genitals that have been sourced to John Ramsey's "collared black shirt."

Actually, no, they BELIEVE they were sourced to John's shirt. Since they are not willing to cough up anything that SUPPORTS THAT BELIEF, nothing is resolved. In reality, it is so far from "Blockbuster" and more in the realm of an 'explosion' from a match being lit (if that). And, I for one, would like to see where you come up with a "consistent with" let alone a "match" in your arguments/posts.

John wore the shirt on Christmas day - he played on the floor withthe kids, he carried her to her bed - her hands may have touched his shirt and she may have transferred the fibbers to any part of her body - - -

I really wouldn't have a problm with that BUT

I don't believe the fibers matched and I am not going to toss what could be great evidence in this case. Could be from the sleeve of an intruder - someone who had no reason to be in that house or near that child.

Other than the wiped spot of what they initially believed to be semen-- later found to be blood, the only reference to wiping came from Dr. Meyer. He saw the dark fibers on her genitalia and believed they were from wiping the body due to their location--according to Schiller.